Research Proposal (This space is for writing and reviewing our Research Proposal. We can upload files for review, make comments, etc.)
Note on 12/5/11:
We need citations for the following:
Duran (2006)
Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham (2007)
Gerbic (2006)
Could whoever supplied quotes and information from these sources please get the APA citations for the reference section today?
I moved a few things around to make the paper flow better and noticed the missing citations. I'll upload the new file for everyone's review asap. -Shannon
_
I've seen some good work posted here this week. Good job ladies.
I took the postings from this page and put them together in our document. It is the file below that I uploaded. Would all of you please read it and work from it to complete any research and work that needs to be done. Anything you have already gathered and not posted can be considered for it as well. a few parts need to be completed toward the end of the paper and some citations need to be added. Thanks, Shannon Thank you Shannon, will do... <d> Thanks Shannon - Maggie
The United States continually has large numbers of people migrating into its states and into its communities. Public schools are expected to accommodate the children of immigrants whether they speak English or not. During the 2010-2011 school year, there were 239,076 English Language Learner (ELL) students in Florida public schools; this accounts for 9% of total students in Florida public schools in 2010 ("English language learners," 2011). These students are provided special services to help them learn English and to accommodate them when they take such tests as the FCAT and the SAT. Many of these ELL students score low on such tests because of their low skill of reading and interpreting English. The goal of the special accommodations for ELL students is to streamline their assimilation into the general population of students as quickly as possible and to increase their academic achievement. These special accommodations cost the state of Florida millions of dollars every year. In 2009, total direct costs for ESOL/ELL was over $700,000 ("Program cost report," 2011), yet statistics show that ELL students score well below English speaking students on tests such as the FCAT ("Assessment results level," 2011). The percentage of ELL students in Florida schools continues with an upward trend while reports show an increase of 16% over the past 10 years ("English language learners," 2011). Such an upward trend would be expected to drive the cost of ELL programs up as well.
This is what I have for the Purpose so far. Can someone find a significant article or report that claims/supports that standardized tests such as FCAT favor native speakers of Engish? -Shannon
Purpose
According to (Young, Holtzman and Steinberg, 2011) standardized tests favor native speakers of English, but technology may help to narrow the gap in scores between those of ELL students and students native to the English language. Administrators constantly wrestle with the issue of allocating funds in the best ways, minority groups and their supporters need ammunition to help them win funds for their causes, and ELL students need the best resources to help them achieve academic success. The purpose of this study is to analyze how using technology in the classroom effects ELL student achievement. The results could be used to shape instructional methods for ELL students in Florida, and possibly across the nation, for the most benefit to the student and to the state and local budgets. With the number of immigrants continuing to rise in Florida, and in our nation, funding ELL programs will continue to be an ongoing issue for our educational systems. The use of technology could allow for a more efficient way to improve ELL students’ skills, thus allowing more ELL students to achieve a level of skill to move out of “special ed” classes and away from accommodations more quickly. This would save time and resources for schools as well as improve academic achievement for ELL students. <from research source>Research on the performance of ELLs on standardized tests has a relatively recent history, with studies dating back about two decades. Much of this research has been conducted by Abedi and his colleagues (Abedi, 2002, 2006; Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004; Abedi & Lord, 2001; Abedi, Lord, & Hofstetter, 1998). Many of these studies have found significant achievement gaps between ELLs and native English speakers (or non-ELLs) (Abedi, 2002; Abedi & Lord, 2001; Abedi, Lord, & Hofstetter, 1998; Young et al., 2008). More specifically, the average test scores of ELLs are substantially lower across most, if not all, subjects and grade levels. Duran (2006) reported that while about 30% of non-ELLs performed at or above the Proficient level on the 2003 NAEP Mathematics and Reading tests, only about 10% of ELLs did so. Furthermore, the magnitude of the achievement difference between ELLs and non-ELLs is greatest for tests that require substantial verbal processing, such as English-language arts, and smallest for mathematics tests.<from research source>
<research citation>Young, J. W., Holtzman, S., Steinberg, J. (2011), Score Comparability for Language Minority Students on the Content Assessments Used by Two States, ETS RR-11-27,Educational Testing Service, . 2011 27 pp. (ED523682)<research citation>
Definitions
“Florida Statutes define an English Language Learner (ELL) as “an individual who was not born in the United States and whose native language is a language other than English; an individual who comes from a home environment where a language other than English is spoken in the home; or an individual who is an American Indian or Alaskan native and who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on his or her level of English language proficiency; and who, by reason thereof, has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or listening to the English language to deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English” (1003.56(2))” ("English language learners," 2011) . This is the definition used for this study as the ELL students participating will be those that qualify under Florida requirements.
For the purposes of this study “technology in the classroom” or a "technology class" will mean 80% of the instruction will be conducted using computer software which includes programs, games, and other pre-packaged digital learning resources. Traditional classroom or method of teaching will refer to classes where teachers use traditional lectures, handouts, textbooks for 80% of the instruction and learning, and use technology no more than 20% of the time. Technology classrooms will be equipped with computers for at least 50% of the students in the class, inteactive whiteboards with clickers, projectors, <new>and computer software, such as: Compass Learning's Odyssey®, Accelerated Math™ or PLATO ®<new>
Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment or CELLA is a test that the State of Florida uses to determine a student's proficiency in the English language. The test assesses a student in four areas: writing , listening, speaking, and reading. Using the test, students are ranked into four different levels. Level A is grade levels K-2, B is grades 3-5, C is grades 6-8, and D is grades 9-12 ("Cella," 2011). . FCAT refers to the Florida Comprehension Assessment Test. The FCAT measures the student's understanding of the state standards in math, reading, writing, and science. Students in specific grade levels take the FCAT. Students in third grade through tenth grade take the FCAT mathematics, students in 4, 8, and 10 grade take writing, while students in 5, 8, and 11 take the science portion of the the test. In the 2010-2011 school year, the state of Florida made changes to the FCAT and implemented the new FCAT 2.0, which measures students on the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS) and the Florida End-of-Cousre Assessment, which measures students on the NGSSS for specific courses in middle school and high school ("Florida department of,").
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a requirement of the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Through the NCLB, states, schools, and school districts have to determine how all students have performed in public schools and to see if they meet adequate yearly progress. Florida uses FCAT and other criteria, such as graduation rates and brake down per group of group performance on FCAT ("No child left," ).
Immediate Response Device or IRD are devices such as clickers or remotes that the students use to enter answers to questions that teachers provide them and that they get instant feed back (Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008). not sure if we need this and Interactive whiteboards
Do we agree that the following are what we have chosen for the research question and hypothesis?
Research Question
Our Research Question Is: Can technology in the classroom help third grade ELL students in Florida attain greater learning gains in mathematics than traditional teaching methods do? Should the Question be narrowed down further to "Florida"? The first paragraph/background intro to the proposal focuses on the state of Florida. Or... will contributions to the background/introduction change that? -Dawn Although our study will be done in Florida, I think we should leave it general and not be too specific. We could add national stats to our introduction to broaden the justification of the study yes, possibly National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) <dawn> . What do you think? -Shannon. I added "in Florida" and we can add in our discussion at the end of the proposal that "similar studies could be done in other states to confirm results for the rest of the country." How's that? -Shannon
I think that we should include national stats as well as the state. This way it could look like we are choice Florida as a sample group and then orange county as a target group. (I think I wrote that in the correct order)- Maggie Please see my underlined comment above. -Shannon
Hypothesis
Our hypothesis is that there is a greater gain in learning mathematics for ELL students in Florida using technology versus traditional classroom methods.
Literature Review
Learning mathematics in any language can be difficult for many students. Learning various subject matter and content in a foreign language can be difficult as well. ELL students may have compounded difficulty in learning mathematics due to not understanding the written instructions and application problems in addition to not understanding the basic math concepts. ELL programs in public schools focus on . In 2001, Giancola reported that a five-year study of using technology in elementary school classrooms showed more improvement for lower achieving students than for students who scored above the 50th percentile in fall testing. Although students showed increased achievement in both reading and mathematics, there was a question of whether the increase in achievement was due more to the implementation of the five-year program than to the technology itself. Educational software was used in both the classrooms and the children’s homes.
Although over $700,000 was spent on ESOL/ELL programs in 2009 in Florida ("Program cost report," 2011), ELL students still performed well below native English speakers in Florida public schools ("Assessment results level," 2011).
“Instructional Technology has been found to have positive effects on both students’ achievement in mathematics and their attitudes towards mathematics“ (Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008).
In the article, Technology in K-12 Mathematics classrooms (Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008) a strength of the paper is that it gives a list and discusses what they consider to be technologies. Another strength in the paper recognizes that teachers should have access to technical support when they are using technology in the classroom. In addition, the article also mentions that teachers need to have the training, time and available of the technology that they are using.
One of the weaknesses of the article is that it had some references from 1987 and from the late 1990’s. I would question the validity of these sources and would wonder if there might not have been something newer and closer to time of publication. The article was lacking on a discussion section. Also the second to last section on implications felt non-coherent. (Is is appropriate to critique an article within our lit review?-Shannon)
Above is my lit review of the article that I was read could someone tell me if I did it right. - Maggie (I don't think we're actually doing a lit review as much as we are reviewing literature that suports our need to do the study and referencing parts that do support the need for our study; we could possible point out shortcomings that result in a need for our study. What do the rest of you think?-Shannon) I am still confused on this part because I have looked up on lit review is that you (one person) has multiple articles and puts them in groups at support the topic or should the gaps. But with just the one article to me it is hard to write up also I am not sure that the article is type that will help with the topic. Should I have looked for a study or what? The article was mainly about the types of technology and how to implement them in the classroom. I will be look for more article(s) tomorrow) - Maggie Yeah Maggie, I think a different article or study might be better. -Shannon Maggie, does this article have a good list of technologies to use for 3rd graders or is the article too old? -Shannon - The article is about the types of technology used in all classes from K-12 there is no specific grades mentioned. I might have a better handle on it with this article. I will post what i am currently writing once I get it typed up. The article is from 2008. Have far back can we go? (number please) But I am also going to look for a another article. This one being a study using technology in elementary schools. Maggie
<<Does this sound right? Or still wrong now?-Maggie>The article by Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008) point out that schools are now starting to utilize technology as an integral part of the curriculum. One of the reasons behind this move is that leading authorities on curriculum standard have been pushing more technology standards into other curriculums. Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008) state that the following technologies being used in the math classrooms are calculators, interactive whiteboard, Immediate Response Devices (IRD), computers and web-based applications.
Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008 quote Weacer (2000) who states that “based on the analyses of National Education Longitional data there is a positive correlation between computer use and student achievement.” No mention if this was across all ethnic groups or if it was a specific group. Also it was not grade level specific.
According to Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008), Interactive whiteboards (IWB) are one of the new and upcoming forms of technology that are slowly replacing chalkboards and the newer whiteboards. A benefit of the IWB’s is that they are said to enhance students motivation. It was not mentioned if this in turns leads to increased student achievement or not.
Immediate Response Devices (IRD) is one of the newest forms of technology. Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008) points out that little research has been conductive on the use of IRD’s in the K-12 setting. Most of the research has been more post-secondary. It is thought that the strategies that have worked in the post-secondary settings will be about to transfer over to the lower grades. >
<(2nd article that I found)> A study by Lopez (2010) concluded that ELL student’s who are in classrooms that use IWB had an increase in student achievement for mathematics in both 3rd and 5th grade and 3rd grade reading than students who were in classroom without the IWB’s. One of the recommendations for farther study is to determine how “Digital Learning Classrooms” would affect ELL student's achievement.
Maggie this is good. I'm taking what you write and incorporating into our actual proposal and this is looking good. -Shannon 12/2/11
We need the citation for Lopez, 2010. -Shannon 12/2/11 <Shannon- I put the citation in the reference section on this page. -Maggie 12/2/11>
"Does Computer Use Promote the Mathematical Proficiency of ELL Students?" (Kim and Chang, 2010)
Low mathematical achievements of U.S. students have placed a great burden upon educators. Adding to the problem, English Language Learners, showed much lower performance then the average performance of native-born English-speaking students.
The NAEP 2007 reports that ELL students show low mathematical performance. According to Lee, Grigg, and Dion (2007), 44% of ELL students scored “below basic” when compared with 16% of non-ELL students in fourth grade. The gap became wider in eighth grade. About 70% of ELL students scored “below basic” while 27% of non-ELL students scored “below basic” (Lee, Grigg,& Dion, 2007).
(stated in above paragraph but in percentage) From a study by Lee, Grigg, and Dion (2007) 197,700 fourth graders and 153,000 eighth graders from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) showed an apparent performance gap in mathematics between ELL and English-speaking students.
We need the citation for Lee, Grigg, & Dion, 2007. -Shannon 12/2/11
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007–494). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
It is imperative to find ways to promote mathematical skills, specifically ELL students as the enrollment grows within the United States school systems.
Research has investigated using technology—computer use as an educational tool to improve elementary students math competency with attention to the effects for ELL students. It is expected that the advanced technology of computers will resolve the difficulties that ELL students may experience. Computers can lend vocabulary and comprehension support for ELL students, who have difficulty in understanding instructions during the classes (Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007). ELL students can also learn at their own pace by utilizing the asynchronous features of computer-based learning (Gerbic, 2006).
Comparisons of math achievement scores, exploration of math pattern performance and the performance gap between two language groups, English-speaking and ELL groups have been examined/analysed. Research studies have adopted Math-IRT scores as the dependent variable due to well-known advantages of IRT scales scores in longitudinal analysis (Hox, 2002; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The IRT scale scores in the ECLS-K database represent estimates of the number of items students would have answered correctly if they had answered all questions, and the scores at different grades are directly comparable without going through an equating process (Hox, 2002; Tourangeau et al., 2006). Item Response Theory (IRT) parameters for NAEP: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/scaling_irt_math.asp
The frequent use of computers to learn math has a differential longitudinal effect on the math achievement of English-speaking and ELL students. When Hispanic and Asian English-speaking students frequently used computers for math, their math performance decreased over the time (Hispanic: _50 = –1.191, p < .05; Asian: _50 = –1.771, p < .01). On the other hand, when Hispanic and Asian ELL students used a computer frequently in math classes, their growth rates in math performance were significantly higher than those of their English-speaking peers (Hispanic: _51 = 1.902, p < .01; Asian: _51 = 2.789, p < .05) (see Table 2). (KIM AND CHANG 2010)
Technology—computer use for math is associated with a reduced gap in math performance between native English-speaking and ELL students. Cross-sectional analyses reveals that computer use for math has an overall negative effects for English-speaking students. However, ELL fifth graders showed high math performances when they frequently used computers for math. This finding contradicts previous studies that showed a positive effect on the mathematical achievement of general population students without considering the linguistic status of students (Lei & Zhao, 2007; Mendicino et al., 2009). Therefore, the gap-reducing effect of computer use for math is a relative new finding.
Incorporate lit review results from other group members also.
Suggestions for the Method section:
Method
Population (target and accessible)
In 2010-11, Orange County public schools had 175,986 students; ELL accounted for 28,252, or 16.1%, of this student population. Our target population would be all 3rd-grade students in Orange County.
Sample (target size and sampling method)
The sample for this study will come from a multi-step process. The number of schools used will depend on the number of ELL students chosen from each school and the number of classes will depend on the number of ELL students placed in each class. A total of at least 40 ELL students will be chosen and each class will contain at least 5 ELL students. For each participating school, ELL students will be categorized based on 2nd-grade math grades and ELL level. Classes will be matched based on number of ELL students and ELL students in these classes will be matched, as closely as possible, using 2nd-grade math grades and ELL rating. The ELL students in each class will constitute a group and each group will also be matched for gender and age. One of each set of matched classes will use technology and the other will use traditional classroom methods. Matched participants will be randomly assigned to one class or the other in a matched set. Prior to being placed on the participant list, ELL students will be notified of the study and the potential to be placed in either type of class, technology or traditional. Parent permissions will be obtained and students’ 2nd-grade math grades will be recorded along with their current ELL level as determined by using Cella tests.
If random assignment is not possible, groups would be matched to reduce posttest differences as much as possible.
Research Design
We will create equivalent groups for comparison and will systematically manipulate the independent variable of teaching method, traditional versus using digital technology, while attempting to maintain similarity of the groups in all other pertinent ways. This research study will, therefore, be experimental.
In Shannon's word document she has a question that is not listed here, which is Teachnology as integral part of instruction or suppleent/reinforcement? Just for mathematics or for reading also? I was thinking that for the classes that are 80% technology that they should have the technology integrated into the instructin and that for the classes that are 20% technology that we might want it for supplemental. As for the reading I think that it should contiue to be 80% and 20% becasue reading is a part of the math curiculm no matter what or at least that is what my school thinks. What do you think about this? - Maggie I think in the Research Design ssection, we have to define what technology will be used and that it will include programs and digital technology for teaching English, reading, and math in order to improve math skills (which is what we are studying) as they are all related (might be good to quote a study that supports this if we can). In the Traditional class, the teacher will use tradional methods of teaching English, reading, and math. I am researching technology for 3rd graders today(11/30/11) to see what might be good. -Shannon Having trouble finding technology (researched for about an hour) for teaching 3rd graders but will look more later. - Shannon (One of the new articles I found for my lit review deals with Interactive White boards in 3 and 5th grade.. I just found it and had to email a link to myself I will print it out and read over it and post about it tomorrow. There was also another one about IWB but I think it was a study done in Austria? here is the file for it. Not sure if it is was we are look I was reading the abstract and it sounded like it might help.
Instrumentation (design instrument, i.e. samples for survey questions with consideration of instrument scales and data format)
<edited, Harcourt no longer exists. test version now 10 by Pearson>Students will be tested using the Pearson Education Stanford Achievement Test version 10 (SAT10) open-ended format in both the fall and the spring, thus providing pre and post scores<edited>
The instrument to be used to measure academic achievement in mathematics is the 3rd-grade FCAT. A form to track the percent of instruction using technology in each class will be required of each teacher on a weekly basis to ensure the proper amount of technology is being used. The form will also include polling information on the types of technology used, i.e. games or other learning applications. CELLA tests will be used to measure ELL levels pre-study and post-study.
Procedure/Data Analysis (you may present your analysis plan in general, you can plan to compare group differences or evaluate group relationships)
FCAT scores for all participants will be gathered and categorized by type of class, technology versus traditional. The mean for each category will be calculated and compared. A t-test could also be used to further analyze the data. (determine whether a t-test would be valid for this data and how it would be used to analyze the data. What other analysis could be done?)
Potential Threats, Controls, and Limitations (potential threats and methods you are going to use for controlling the threats) need Control of extraneous variables (e.g., maturation, history, location, data collector bias, analysis of covariance)
Possible threats that could interfere with interpretation of results and the ability to generalize the findings must be controlled as much as possible. These threats include, but may not be limited to, class sizes, number of teachers per class, types of technology used, experience and training of the teachers, and the number of each level of ELL student. Other threats that may not lend themselves to being controlled are students' attitudes toward computers, computer games, specific software, etc. and students' proficiency with computers. Parents' attitudes toward the use of technology could also pose a threat to the study. One possible threat that may not be controllable is the attrition of participants.
It is expected that teachers will cooperate with the terms of the study and that the threat of not enough usage of technology or unequal usage from one classroom to another will not exist. It is imperative that each school has technical support for the use of each technology used.
One possible limitation of the study would be that skill gains may not be as large or as evident in one year as they would be over more time and we would, therefore, recommend a longitudinal study over several years to determine the true benefit of using digital technology to help ELL students increase their achievement in mathematics.
Are we going to assume that teachers will have acess to technical support and proper training. Maggie could also be a threat, lack of technical support... <dawn> As a control of this threat, we need to state that each school will have technical support; done above.-Shannon
Lopez, O. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving english language learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education,54(4), 901-915. Retrieved from EBSCOHOST.
The above is from son of citation and below is the data I copied from the report:
Education Information & Accountability Services Data Report English Language Lerners, Series 2011-31D, May 2011 Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstudent.asp(no author was given)
Stanford 10 is a research-based, norm-referenced achievement test developed by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. It provides information on student performance based on its nationwide standardization program conducted in the spring and fall of 2002.
Stanford 10 is aligned to the most current state and national standards. For example, when the Stanford 10 mathematics subtests were developed, careful attention was paid to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000), which emphasizes the necessity of problem solving as the focus of school mathematics. The Stanford 10 content is grade- and age-level appropriate and mirrors instructional activities and materials used in exemplary academic programs today.
In the Stanford 10 reading test, the test includes more items that address skills in critical analysis and strategies. Selections of poetry are now used at all levels of the test.
In the Stanford 10 mathematics test, more items require reasoning and problem solving. Estimation is now tested at all grade levels, and more two- and three-step problems are included
Note on 12/5/11:
We need citations for the following:
Duran (2006)
Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham (2007)
Gerbic (2006)
Could whoever supplied quotes and information from these sources please get the APA citations for the reference section today?
I moved a few things around to make the paper flow better and noticed the missing citations. I'll upload the new file for everyone's review asap. -Shannon
_
I've seen some good work posted here this week. Good job ladies.I took the postings from this page and put them together in our document. It is the file below that I uploaded. Would all of you please read it and work from it to complete any research and work that needs to be done. Anything you have already gathered and not posted can be considered for it as well. a few parts need to be completed toward the end of the paper and some citations need to be added. Thanks, Shannon
Thank you Shannon, will do... <d>
Thanks Shannon - Maggie
Appendix A:
Appendix A (.xls):
Appendix B:
Introduction
Background
The United States continually has large numbers of people migrating into its states and into its communities. Public schools are expected to accommodate the children of immigrants whether they speak English or not. During the 2010-2011 school year, there were 239,076 English Language Learner (ELL) students in Florida public schools; this accounts for 9% of total students in Florida public schools in 2010 ("English language learners," 2011). These students are provided special services to help them learn English and to accommodate them when they take such tests as the FCAT and the SAT. Many of these ELL students score low on such tests because of their low skill of reading and interpreting English. The goal of the special accommodations for ELL students is to streamline their assimilation into the general population of students as quickly as possible and to increase their academic achievement. These special accommodations cost the state of Florida millions of dollars every year. In 2009, total direct costs for ESOL/ELL was over $700,000 ("Program cost report," 2011), yet statistics show that ELL students score well below English speaking students on tests such as the FCAT ("Assessment results level," 2011). The percentage of ELL students in Florida schools continues with an upward trend while reports show an increase of 16% over the past 10 years ("English language learners," 2011). Such an upward trend would be expected to drive the cost of ELL programs up as well.
This is what I have for the Purpose so far. Can someone find a significant article or report that claims/supports that standardized tests such as FCAT favor native speakers of Engish? -Shannon
Purpose
According to (Young, Holtzman and Steinberg, 2011) standardized tests favor native speakers of English, but technology may help to narrow the gap in scores between those of ELL students and students native to the English language. Administrators constantly wrestle with the issue of allocating funds in the best ways, minority groups and their supporters need ammunition to help them win funds for their causes, and ELL students need the best resources to help them achieve academic success. The purpose of this study is to analyze how using technology in the classroom effects ELL student achievement. The results could be used to shape instructional methods for ELL students in Florida, and possibly across the nation, for the most benefit to the student and to the state and local budgets. With the number of immigrants continuing to rise in Florida, and in our nation, funding ELL programs will continue to be an ongoing issue for our educational systems. The use of technology could allow for a more efficient way to improve ELL students’ skills, thus allowing more ELL students to achieve a level of skill to move out of “special ed” classes and away from accommodations more quickly. This would save time and resources for schools as well as improve academic achievement for ELL students.
<from research source>Research on the performance of ELLs on standardized tests has a relatively recent history, with studies dating back about two decades. Much of this research has been conducted by Abedi and his colleagues (Abedi, 2002, 2006; Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004; Abedi & Lord, 2001; Abedi, Lord, & Hofstetter, 1998). Many of these studies have found significant achievement gaps between ELLs and native English speakers (or non-ELLs) (Abedi, 2002; Abedi & Lord, 2001; Abedi, Lord, & Hofstetter, 1998; Young et al., 2008). More specifically, the average test scores of ELLs are substantially lower across most, if not all, subjects and grade levels. Duran (2006) reported that while about 30% of non-ELLs performed at or above the Proficient level on the 2003 NAEP Mathematics and Reading tests, only about 10% of ELLs did so. Furthermore, the magnitude of the achievement difference between ELLs and non-ELLs is greatest for tests that require substantial verbal processing, such as English-language arts, and smallest for mathematics tests.<from research source>
<research citation>Young, J. W., Holtzman, S., Steinberg, J. (2011), Score Comparability for Language Minority Students on the Content Assessments Used by Two States, ETS RR-11-27,Educational Testing Service, . 2011 27 pp. (ED523682)<research citation>
Definitions
“Florida Statutes define an English Language Learner (ELL) as “an individual who was not born in the United States and whose native language is a language other than English; an individual who comes from a home environment where a language other than English is spoken in the home; or an individual who is an American Indian or Alaskan native and who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on his or her level of English language proficiency; and who, by reason thereof, has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or listening to the English language to deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English” (1003.56(2))” ("English language learners," 2011) . This is the definition used for this study as the ELL students participating will be those that qualify under Florida requirements.
For the purposes of this study “technology in the classroom” or a "technology class" will mean 80% of the instruction will be conducted using computer software which includes programs, games, and other pre-packaged digital learning resources. Traditional classroom or method of teaching will refer to classes where teachers use traditional lectures, handouts, textbooks for 80% of the instruction and learning, and use technology no more than 20% of the time. Technology classrooms will be equipped with computers for at least 50% of the students in the class, inteactive whiteboards with clickers, projectors, <new>and computer software, such as: Compass Learning's Odyssey®, Accelerated Math™ or PLATO ®<new>
Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment or CELLA is a test that the State of Florida uses to determine a student's proficiency in the English language. The test assesses a student in four areas: writing , listening, speaking, and reading. Using the test, students are ranked into four different levels. Level A is grade levels K-2, B is grades 3-5, C is grades 6-8, and D is grades 9-12 ("Cella," 2011).
.
FCAT refers to the Florida Comprehension Assessment Test. The FCAT measures the student's understanding of the state standards in math, reading, writing, and science. Students in specific grade levels take the FCAT. Students in third grade through tenth grade take the FCAT mathematics, students in 4, 8, and 10 grade take writing, while students in 5, 8, and 11 take the science portion of the the test. In the 2010-2011 school year, the state of Florida made changes to the FCAT and implemented the new FCAT 2.0, which measures students on the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS) and the Florida End-of-Cousre Assessment, which measures students on the NGSSS for specific courses in middle school and high school ("Florida department of,").
[[http://fcat.fldoe.org/ ]]
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a requirement of the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Through the NCLB, states, schools, and school districts have to determine how all students have performed in public schools and to see if they meet adequate yearly progress. Florida uses FCAT and other criteria, such as graduation rates and brake down per group of group performance on FCAT ("No child left," ).
http://www.fldoe.org/nclb/adequate_yearly_progress.asp
http://www.fundeducationnow.org/weekly-alerts/what-is-adequate-yearly-progress/
[[http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/hrd/Articles/FactSheet-AYP&NCLB.pdf ]]
Immediate Response Device or IRD are devices such as clickers or remotes that the students use to enter answers to questions that teachers provide them and that they get instant feed back (Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008). not sure if we need this and Interactive whiteboards
Do we agree that the following are what we have chosen for the research question and hypothesis?
Research Question
Our Research Question Is: Can technology in the classroom help third grade ELL students in Florida attain greater learning gains in mathematics than traditional teaching methods do? Should the Question be narrowed down further to "Florida"? The first paragraph/background intro to the proposal focuses on the state of Florida. Or... will contributions to the background/introduction change that? -Dawn Although our study will be done in Florida, I think we should leave it general and not be too specific. We could add national stats to our introduction to broaden the justification of the study yes, possibly National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) <dawn>
. What do you think? -Shannon. I added "in Florida" and we can add in our discussion at the end of the proposal that "similar studies could be done in other states to confirm results for the rest of the country." How's that? -Shannon
I think that we should include national stats as well as the state. This way it could look like we are choice Florida as a sample group and then orange county as a target group. (I think I wrote that in the correct order)- Maggie Please see my underlined comment above. -Shannon
Hypothesis
Our hypothesis is that there is a greater gain in learning mathematics for ELL students in Florida using technology versus traditional classroom methods.
Literature Review
Learning mathematics in any language can be difficult for many students. Learning various subject matter and content in a foreign language can be difficult as well. ELL students may have compounded difficulty in learning mathematics due to not understanding the written instructions and application problems in addition to not understanding the basic math concepts. ELL programs in public schools focus on .
In 2001, Giancola reported that a five-year study of using technology in elementary school classrooms showed more improvement for lower achieving students than for students who scored above the 50th percentile in fall testing. Although students showed increased achievement in both reading and mathematics, there was a question of whether the increase in achievement was due more to the implementation of the five-year program than to the technology itself. Educational software was used in both the classrooms and the children’s homes.
Although over $700,000 was spent on ESOL/ELL programs in 2009 in Florida ("Program cost report," 2011), ELL students still performed well below native English speakers in Florida public schools ("Assessment results level," 2011).
“Instructional Technology has been found to have positive effects on both students’ achievement in mathematics and their attitudes towards mathematics“ (Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008).
In the article, Technology in K-12 Mathematics classrooms (Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008) a strength of the paper is that it gives a list and discusses what they consider to be technologies. Another strength in the paper recognizes that teachers should have access to technical support when they are using technology in the classroom. In addition, the article also mentions that teachers need to have the training, time and available of the technology that they are using.
One of the weaknesses of the article is that it had some references from 1987 and from the late 1990’s. I would question the validity of these sources and would wonder if there might not have been something newer and closer to time of publication. The article was lacking on a discussion section. Also the second to last section on implications felt non-coherent. (Is is appropriate to critique an article within our lit review?-Shannon)
Above is my lit review of the article that I was read could someone tell me if I did it right. - Maggie (I don't think we're actually doing a lit review as much as we are reviewing literature that suports our need to do the study and referencing parts that do support the need for our study; we could possible point out shortcomings that result in a need for our study. What do the rest of you think?-Shannon) I am still confused on this part because I have looked up on lit review is that you (one person) has multiple articles and puts them in groups at support the topic or should the gaps. But with just the one article to me it is hard to write up also I am not sure that the article is type that will help with the topic. Should I have looked for a study or what? The article was mainly about the types of technology and how to implement them in the classroom. I will be look for more article(s) tomorrow) - Maggie Yeah
Maggie, I think a different article or study might be better. -Shannon Maggie, does this article have a good list of technologies to use for 3rd graders or is the article too old? -Shannon - The article is about the types of technology used in all classes from K-12 there is no specific grades mentioned. I might have a better handle on it with this article. I will post what i am currently writing once I get it typed up. The article is from 2008. Have far back can we go? (number please) But I am also going to look for a another article. This one being a study using technology in elementary schools. Maggie
<<Does this sound right? Or still wrong now?-Maggie>The article by Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008) point out that schools are now starting to utilize technology as an integral part of the curriculum. One of the reasons behind this move is that leading authorities on curriculum standard have been pushing more technology standards into other curriculums. Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008) state that the following technologies being used in the math classrooms are calculators, interactive whiteboard, Immediate Response Devices (IRD), computers and web-based applications.
Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro, 2008 quote Weacer (2000) who states that “based on the analyses of National Education Longitional data there is a positive correlation between computer use and student achievement.” No mention if this was across all ethnic groups or if it was a specific group. Also it was not grade level specific.
According to Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008), Interactive whiteboards (IWB) are one of the new and upcoming forms of technology that are slowly replacing chalkboards and the newer whiteboards. A benefit of the IWB’s is that they are said to enhance students motivation. It was not mentioned if this in turns leads to increased student achievement or not.
Immediate Response Devices (IRD) is one of the newest forms of technology. Ozel, Yetkiner & Capraro (2008) points out that little research has been conductive on the use of IRD’s in the K-12 setting. Most of the research has been more post-secondary. It is thought that the strategies that have worked in the post-secondary settings will be about to transfer over to the lower grades. >
<(2nd article that I found)> A study by Lopez (2010) concluded that ELL student’s who are in classrooms that use IWB had an increase in student achievement for mathematics in both 3rd and 5th grade and 3rd grade reading than students who were in classroom without the IWB’s. One of the recommendations for farther study is to determine how “Digital Learning Classrooms” would affect ELL student's achievement.
Maggie this is good. I'm taking what you write and incorporating into our actual proposal and this is looking good. -Shannon 12/2/11
We need the citation for Lopez, 2010. -Shannon 12/2/11
<Shannon- I put the citation in the reference section on this page. -Maggie 12/2/11>
"Does Computer Use Promote the Mathematical Proficiency of ELL Students?" (Kim and Chang, 2010)
Low mathematical achievements of U.S. students have placed a great burden upon educators. Adding to the problem, English Language Learners, showed much lower performance then the average performance of native-born English-speaking students.
The NAEP 2007 reports that ELL students show low mathematical performance. According to Lee, Grigg, and Dion (2007), 44% of ELL students scored “below basic” when compared with 16% of non-ELL students in fourth grade. The gap became wider in eighth grade. About 70% of ELL students scored “below basic” while 27% of non-ELL students scored “below basic” (Lee, Grigg,& Dion, 2007).
(stated in above paragraph but in percentage) From a study by Lee, Grigg, and Dion (2007) 197,700 fourth graders and 153,000 eighth graders from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) showed an apparent performance gap in mathematics between ELL and English-speaking students.
We need the citation for Lee, Grigg, & Dion, 2007. -Shannon 12/2/11
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007–494). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
It is imperative to find ways to promote mathematical skills, specifically ELL students as the enrollment grows within the United States school systems.
Research has investigated using technology—computer use as an educational tool to improve elementary students math competency with attention to the effects for ELL students. It is expected that the advanced technology of computers will resolve the difficulties that ELL students may experience. Computers can lend vocabulary and comprehension support for ELL students, who have difficulty in understanding instructions during the classes (Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007). ELL students can also learn at their own pace by utilizing the asynchronous features of computer-based learning (Gerbic, 2006).
Comparisons of math achievement scores, exploration of math pattern performance and the performance gap between two language groups, English-speaking and ELL groups have been examined/analysed. Research studies have adopted Math-IRT scores as the dependent variable due to well-known advantages of IRT scales scores in longitudinal analysis (Hox, 2002; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The IRT scale scores in the ECLS-K database represent estimates of the number of items students would have answered correctly if they had answered all questions, and the scores at different grades are directly comparable without going through an equating process (Hox, 2002; Tourangeau et al., 2006). Item Response Theory (IRT) parameters for NAEP: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/scaling_irt_math.asp
The frequent use of computers to learn math has a differential longitudinal effect on the math achievement of English-speaking and ELL students. When Hispanic and Asian English-speaking students frequently used computers for math, their math performance decreased over the time (Hispanic: _50 = –1.191, p < .05; Asian: _50 = –1.771, p < .01). On the other hand, when Hispanic and Asian ELL students used a computer frequently in math classes, their growth rates in math performance were significantly higher than those of their English-speaking peers (Hispanic: _51 = 1.902, p < .01; Asian: _51 = 2.789, p < .05) (see Table 2). (KIM AND CHANG 2010)
Technology—computer use for math is associated with a reduced gap in math performance between native English-speaking and ELL students. Cross-sectional analyses reveals that computer use for math has an overall negative effects for English-speaking students. However, ELL fifth graders showed high math performances when they frequently used computers for math. This finding contradicts previous studies that showed a positive effect on the mathematical achievement of general population students without considering the linguistic status of students (Lei & Zhao, 2007; Mendicino et al., 2009). Therefore, the gap-reducing effect of computer use for math is a relative new finding.
Incorporate lit review results from other group members also.
Suggestions for the Method section:
Method
Population (target and accessible)
In 2010-11, Orange County public schools had 175,986 students; ELL accounted for 28,252, or 16.1%, of this student population. Our target population would be all 3rd-grade students in Orange County.
Sample (target size and sampling method)
The sample for this study will come from a multi-step process. The number of schools used will depend on the number of ELL students chosen from each school and the number of classes will depend on the number of ELL students placed in each class. A total of at least 40 ELL students will be chosen and each class will contain at least 5 ELL students. For each participating school, ELL students will be categorized based on 2nd-grade math grades and ELL level. Classes will be matched based on number of ELL students and ELL students in these classes will be matched, as closely as possible, using 2nd-grade math grades and ELL rating. The ELL students in each class will constitute a group and each group will also be matched for gender and age. One of each set of matched classes will use technology and the other will use traditional classroom methods. Matched participants will be randomly assigned to one class or the other in a matched set.
Prior to being placed on the participant list, ELL students will be notified of the study and the potential to be placed in either type of class, technology or traditional. Parent permissions will be obtained and students’ 2nd-grade math grades will be recorded along with their current ELL level as determined by using Cella tests.
If random assignment is not possible, groups would be matched to reduce posttest differences as much as possible.
Research Design
We will create equivalent groups for comparison and will systematically manipulate the independent variable of teaching method, traditional versus using digital technology, while attempting to maintain similarity of the groups in all other pertinent ways. This research study will, therefore, be experimental.
In Shannon's word document she has a question that is not listed here, which is Teachnology as integral part of instruction or suppleent/reinforcement? Just for mathematics or for reading also? I was thinking that for the classes that are 80% technology that they should have the technology integrated into the instructin and that for the classes that are 20% technology that we might want it for supplemental. As for the reading I think that it should contiue to be 80% and 20% becasue reading is a part of the math curiculm no matter what or at least that is what my school thinks. What do you think about this? - Maggie I think in the Research Design ssection, we have to define what technology will be used and that it will include programs and digital technology for teaching English, reading, and math in order to improve math skills (which is what we are studying) as they are all related (might be good to quote a study that supports this if we can). In the Traditional class, the teacher will use tradional methods of teaching English, reading, and math. I am researching technology for 3rd graders today(11/30/11) to see what might be good. -Shannon Having trouble finding technology (researched for about an hour) for teaching 3rd graders but will look more later. - Shannon
(One of the new articles I found for my lit review deals with Interactive White boards in 3 and 5th grade.. I just found it and had to email a link to myself I will print it out and read over it and post about it tomorrow. There was also another one about IWB but I think it was a study done in Austria? here is the file for it. Not sure if it is was we are look I was reading the abstract and it sounded like it might help.
Instrumentation (design instrument, i.e. samples for survey questions with consideration of instrument scales and data format)
<edited, Harcourt no longer exists. test version now 10 by Pearson>Students will be tested using the Pearson Education Stanford Achievement Test version 10 (SAT10) open-ended format in both the fall and the spring, thus providing pre and post scores<edited>
The instrument to be used to measure academic achievement in mathematics is the 3rd-grade FCAT. A form to track the percent of instruction using technology in each class will be required of each teacher on a weekly basis to ensure the proper amount of technology is being used. The form will also include polling information on the types of technology used, i.e. games or other learning applications. CELLA tests will be used to measure ELL levels pre-study and post-study.
Procedure/Data Analysis (you may present your analysis plan in general, you can plan to compare group differences or evaluate group relationships)
FCAT scores for all participants will be gathered and categorized by type of class, technology versus traditional. The mean for each category will be calculated and compared. A t-test could also be used to further analyze the data. (determine whether a t-test would be valid for this data and how it would be used to analyze the data. What other analysis could be done?)
Potential Threats, Controls, and Limitations (potential threats and methods you are going to use for controlling the threats) need Control of extraneous variables (e.g., maturation, history, location, data collector bias, analysis of covariance)
Possible threats that could interfere with interpretation of results and the ability to generalize the findings must be controlled as much as possible. These threats include, but may not be limited to, class sizes, number of teachers per class, types of technology used, experience and training of the teachers, and the number of each level of ELL student.
Other threats that may not lend themselves to being controlled are students' attitudes toward computers, computer games, specific software, etc. and students' proficiency with computers. Parents' attitudes toward the use of technology could also pose a threat to the study. One possible threat that may not be controllable is the attrition of participants.
It is expected that teachers will cooperate with the terms of the study and that the threat of not enough usage of technology or unequal usage from one classroom to another will not exist. It is imperative that each school has technical support for the use of each technology used.
One possible limitation of the study would be that skill gains may not be as large or as evident in one year as they would be over more time and we would, therefore, recommend a longitudinal study over several years to determine the true benefit of using digital technology to help ELL students increase their achievement in mathematics.
Are we going to assume that teachers will have acess to technical support and proper training. Maggie could also be a threat, lack of technical support... <dawn> As a control of this threat, we need to state that each school will have technical support; done above.-Shannon
References
Giancola, S. P. (2001). Technology programs...for all or for some?. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 369-384. Retrieved from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Article.asp?ContributionID=379149
Florida Department of Education, Education Information & Accountability Services. (2011). Assessment results level 3 (all schools). Retrieved from website: http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstudent.asp
Florida Department of Education, Education Information & Accountability. (2011). English language learners (Series 2011-31D). Retrieved from website: http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstudent.asp
Florida Department of Education, Office of Funding and Financial Reporting. (2011). Program cost report with selected costs as percentage of revenue (01). Retrieved from website: http://public2.fldoe.org/TransparencyReports/ReportView.aspx?ReportID=1
Kim, S., & Chang, M. (2010). Does computer use promote the mathematical proficiency of ELL students? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 285-305. Retrieved from website: http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login?url=http:search.proquest.com/docview/742860694?accountid=10003; http://baywood.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=0735-6331&volume=42&issue=3&spage=285
Cella. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/aala/cella.asp
Florida department of education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fcat.fldoe.org/
No child left behind. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/nclb/adequate_yearly_progress.asp
Ozel, S., Yetkiner, Z., & Capraro, R. (2008). Technology in k-12 mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 108(2), 80. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=21&sid=c71d240e-72c1-45bc-baa9-ecd0a32a3657@sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==
Lopez, O. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving english language learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education,54(4), 901-915. Retrieved from EBSCOHOST.
The above is from son of citation and below is the data I copied from the report:
Education Information & Accountability Services Data Report English Language Lerners, Series 2011-31D, May 2011 Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstudent.asp(no author was given)
Stanford 10 is a research-based, norm-referenced achievement test developed by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. It provides information on student performance based on its nationwide standardization program conducted in the spring and fall of 2002.
Stanford 10 is aligned to the most current state and national standards. For example, when the Stanford 10 mathematics subtests were developed, careful attention was paid to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000), which emphasizes the necessity of problem solving as the focus of school mathematics. The Stanford 10 content is grade- and age-level appropriate and mirrors instructional activities and materials used in exemplary academic programs today.
In the Stanford 10 reading test, the test includes more items that address skills in critical analysis and strategies. Selections of poetry are now used at all levels of the test.
In the Stanford 10 mathematics test, more items require reasoning and problem solving. Estimation is now tested at all grade levels, and more two- and three-step problems are included
Florida Department of Education, Department of Education and Harcourt Assessment, Inc. (2005). The new fcat nrt: Stanford achievement test series, tenth edition. Retrieved from website: http://www.fldoe.org/search/default.asp?cx=012683245092260330905:alo4lmikgz4&cof=FORID:11&q=Stanford Achievement test&sa=Search
("The new fcat," 2005)
//